NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ILDEBRANDO CASTRO-GONZALEZ, No. 18-71908
AKA Faustino Aguilar,
Agency No. A024-929-853
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ildebrando Castro-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and deferral of removal under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Guan v. Barr, 925 F.3d 1022,
1031 (9th Cir. 2019). We review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Castro-Gonzalez failed to establish that it is more likely than
not that he would be tortured by of with the consent or acquiescence of the
government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 140, 147 (9th
Cir. 2009).
We find Castro-Gonzalez’s argument that the BIA violated his due process
rights unpersuasive. See Jiang, 754 F.3d at 741 (concluding that a due process
violation occurs only if the petitioner is “prevented from reasonably presenting his
case”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2
Ildebrando Castro-Gonzalez v. William Barr
Combined Opinion